Response #5.

In Skyla's blog, she asked, "Why do human beings only focus on the negatives of people, things, and even art when our flaws are actually what makes us beautiful?"

I think people do that because they don't want to acknowledge the fact that we are all flawed, because having flaws in some aspect or another gives us vulnerability and most people don't like the feeling of being vulnerable and open for attack. Therefore, we cover up these flaws to protect ourselves, and this may happen on either a conscious or a subconscious level. We are always trying to reach a level of happiness or contentment that may be unattainable to some, and because these flaws exist, it just prevents us from reaching that goal of ultimate happiness.

I agree with Skyla, however, that people's flaws are what makes them beautiful. Despite the disdain I hold for most people, I still somehow find them all so beautiful because we all have our flaws that we are trying to hide. It just makes us so much more human and alive when we do acknowledge these flaws and accept them for what they are.

My question is, "Beauty is a universal abstraction that has intrigued us for ages. What do you find beautiful that most other people may not?"

Tolstoy's View on Art.

I didn't attend class today, but I'm still going to blog about Tolstoy's view on art because I feel very strongly about this chapter of the textbook.

Tolstoy's view on art is that it parallels what language is to society - the transferring of information. However, for art, it doesn't transfer information, it transfers emotions and feelings. And not only does it transfer these feelings, it also creates a very unified, interconnected society on earth full of art and feeling. When somebody looks at a piece of artwork, it "infects" them and whatever the artist felt while making it, the viewer ultimately feels as well. For instance, if an artist painted a very morose, gloomy landscape of waves crashing upon the base of a lighthouse with a stormy sky in the background, the artist is transferring those negative emotions into his painting which, thus, infects the viewer. The viewer senses the negative emotions based on the imagery of the piece and, in turn, feels the same emotions the painter originally felt.

What I thought was particularly interesting about this chapter was Tolstoy's prediction that if art did not exist, then society would be horrible and savage. If people did not have the capacity to receive these feelings and emotions through artwork, how would the transference of these feelings take place? We would be disconnected from each other. Therefore, it is easy to assume that art was almost a "savior" in Tolstoy's eyes and was detrimental to the ease of the human condition.

Which leads me to the question, "If art did not exist, how do you think society would act? Would it be as 'savage' and 'horrible' as Tolstoy predicts it to be?"

Response #4.

This is in response to Chelsea's question in which she asked, "Do you agree or disagree that it [body painting] is an appropriate form of self-expression and how do you feel about nudity in art?"

I agree with you that body painting is not only an appropriate form of self-expression, but a beautiful form. I've always found the human body beautiful on it's own - just the way the body works, the way the muscles move, all of the different modifications we can do to the human anatomy that may people overlook. It's poetry in motion, in a way. Body painting combines the elements of the physical realm and the mental realm, bringing to life ideas in one's mind painted on one's body. In this respect, it's very much like tattoos except it is not permanent, which I think allows for a lot more freedom and spontaneity in the art. Self-expression that tattooing may lack because some people my be afraid of its permanence can be more elaborated on with body painting.

As for nudity in art, because I find the human form so beautiful, I think it's one of the most organic and natural means of art around because it is what we are, what we know, and what we experience day in and day out. It is what we experience in it's most natural form, and often times its most vulnerable form. For art, this means a lot because art communicates emotions, feelings, states of mind, experiences we all go through, and the vulnerable human body speaks loudly in the art world.

My question is, "According to Tolstoy, art is a communication of feeling. Has there ever been a time where you have seen a piece of artwork or a musical composition or any other form of art, and felt no emotion whatsoever?"

Plato & Art as Imitation.

In class today, we began discussing Plato's view of art as it fits in his ideal society. His approach to art begins with the world of Forms in which the ideal, eternal, immaculate idea of an object lies (in the eyes of the gods). Take a bed, for example. The Form of a bed is non-changing and perfect - the "truth" of what the bed truly is. A step down from that would be the artisan's construction of a real bed, which is just a mere reflection of what he or she sees the Forms as. Finally, a painter's interpretation of the artisan's bed is only an imitation of what he sees - it is twice removed from the world of Forms and, therefore, twice removed from the Truth.

Because, in Plato's view, an artist is so removed from the truth, he should not be allowed in Plato's ideal society. The truth should be honored most of all. If an artist is allowed into society, his ideals would be infused into society and corrupt once-rational people into irrational, truth-fearing people. In the text, he writes as Socrates, "He'll [the artist] go on imitating, even though he doesn't know the good or bad qualities of anything, but what he'll imitate, it seems, is what appears fine or beautiful to the majority of the people who know nothing" (19). Art appeals to the inferior part of the soul that sympathizes with emotion instead of reason, because it is in our human nature to naturally hunger for these things. In Plato's view, this cannot be controlled, but the overindulgence in such emotional hedonism weakens us as humans and makes us unrealistic, irrational, "wretched" beings, which drives us away from ultimate happiness.

My question is, "Throughout the text's excerpt of the Republic, there is obvious contempt for artists through the eyes of Socrates. Doesn't this give him a subjective outlook on who should be entered into his society? Therefore, how can one be certain that what he says is for the best?"

Response #3.

In Skyla's blog, she asks, "What aspect of nature (whether it be a tree, flowers, the sky) do you find most appealing to view as a piece of art work and why?"

I've always loved the way trees turn out when interpreted as art, because it's so varied in how artists interpret them and it's always interesting to see what comes from the artists' minds. Trees, to me, have always been a symbol of both spirituality and the natural journey through life, i.e., we have roots in our families and where we grew up, but as we grow, we branch out and touch other people's lives until everything becomes an interlocking community of us and our lives and our emotions and feelings. It's a really symbolic, powerful image and when it's displayed in art, the meanings can be overwhelmingly beautiful.

My question is, "Why, in Plato's time, was the act of succumbing to grief seen as a 'womanish' thing to do, and why was it shameful for men to do if grief is a part of human nature?"

The Intentionality Thesis & The Violation of Art.

In class on Friday, we discussed the intentionality thesis of art in trying to describe what makes art the way that it is. The intentionality thesis states that there must be an intention behind the piece in order to consider it art. However, this could be intention on either the artist or the observer's side. For example, an artist may create a painting with the intent for it to be art, but when the painting is completed, a critical observer may look at it in such a way that his or her intent is not for artistic purposes. Does that still make the painting art? Another example, something in nature may have come about not for the intention of it to be art, such as the aurora borealis, but onlookers look at it with the intent of seeing art. Is the aurora borealis, then, considered art?

In class, we also discussed whether or not we thought that technology has violated or "molested" art in contemporary times. My personal belief is that technology has both violated and benefited art. A lot of modern art nowadays is very abstract and controversial, consisting of a lot of mixed media and human interaction pieces. Without new technology to make such art possible, it would cease to exist, so technology has completely transformed the way art is. However, it has also violated art. Music post-production doesn't sound quite the same as it used to back in the 1970s and 1980s - the raw, natural sound is gone, replaced with ProTools and other layering technology. Also, we have become so accustomed to seeing classic pieces of art on the Internet like the Mona Lisa that the enthusiasm when seeing it in real life has diminished greatly - people figure they don't even need to go to art museums anymore because they can just as easily see art online. It just isn't the same.

My question is, "Art has become so metaphorical and abstract nowadays that almost anything can be considered art. Some artists take it to the extreme and put others and themselves as risk for their art. Where are the boundaries between what is art and what is just plain reckless?"

Response #2.

This is in response to Chelsea's blog in which she asked, "What do you believe is the best course of action if people are spreading a rumor about you that is not true?"

All throughout high school, I was always that kid that nobody really knew too much about because I kept to myself and to my friends most of the time. However, for some reason, my name floated around the school despite my tendencies to lay low - I guess out of intimidation because I was never afraid to really be myself, or because I've always been a bit out there, so people didn't really know what to make of me. But nevertheless, there have been instances where people did spread false rumors about me.

Through my experience, I can say the best way to deal with these rumors is just to ignore them. Rumors are a really immature and childish thing to deal with, and if you create them into a problem bigger than they should be, you're not only giving people the attention that they want, but you're also making a spectacle of yourself, leading people to further believe that the rumor is true. However, if you just ignore the rumor, brush it off your back as if it's nothing, then it will soon die off. You won't be giving people the satisfaction of knowing that it possibly bothered you, and because you showed that it didn't bother you (even if it did), then people may figure out that it is untrue and go about their daily lives and leave you alone.

Although this is on an unrelated note, my question is, "Do you believe that Beauty is purely subjective, or is there a collective social standard of what is deemed beautiful and what is not?"